Dipasquale v. Maroone Ford, LLC
954 So. 2d 691, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 5608, 2007 WL 1135688
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 18, 2007·No. No. 4D06-1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Affirmed. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985) (“In order to be preserved for further review by a higher court ... the specific legal argument ... to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved.”); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dipasquale v. Maroone Ford, LLC, 954 So. 2d 691, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 5608, 2007 WL 1135688 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).
954 So. 2d 691 (Dipasquale v. Maroone Ford, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, etc v. CHARLES RICHARD STEVENS a/k/a CHARLES R. STEVENS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
Velazquez v. State
954 So. 2d 691 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)